First, we have to go all the way back to the Enlightenment Age to remember the profound historical rift opened up between Emotionality and Rationality -- a divide that still rages fiercely in our politics today (even moreso of late, as it is consciously being stoked by Bad Faith actors both externally and internally).
Next, we look at how Emotionality has been aggressively gendered since (at least) then: women are the emotional sex, we've been told. Men are the rational, cool-headed arbiters of the Best Decisions -- mythologically, after long periods of research, praxis, and careful deliberation.
This allows the impulsive, cowboy, "Men of Action" strain of political derring-do to pass by largely unexamined as maintaining Rationality -- even when the only commonality between the two paradigms is often the possession of a Y chromosome. In other words, typically men get to appear rational even when acting impulsively, while women have no such culturally-accepted Emperor's New Clothes...
Both are subject to an extra heaping of criticism, skepticism, and scorn because there is some culturally-validated argument to be made about how they are different from some perceived status quo.
And in modern mercenary America, the mythology is "win at all costs" whether it's politics, business, religion, education, or Returning That Thing You Broke even though it's out of warranty because goddammit we're entitled to All The Things!!!!
To gain or preserve power, you need to win
It is acceptable -- even laudable -- to win by any means necessary (legal, ethical, loophole, grey area, "disrupting" or otherwise)
To win you must be good and work hard, but plenty of winners take shortcuts, cheat, break rules/laws, harm others, and/or fraud their way to the top -- so in order to stay on the field, you need to become open to those tactics whether you believe it's right or not (see: Lance Armstrong). Meanwhile internally, you have built-in psychological mechanisms that enforce you...